Become a Fan

June 05, 2014

This is a report that's been out for a month or so but my recent hiatus is causing me to "catch up" a little.

However, in late April, the Health and Social Care Information Center in the UK released a full report on dog bites in the UK.

It found that once again, dog bites are up 6% in the UK -- this is a part of a long-term trend in the number of hospitalizations due to dog bites in the UK that has been going on for years in spite of, or perhaps because of, the nation's insistance on targeting dangerous dogs based on breed instead of based on behavior.

However, maybe the most intereting point of the study is tht they noted that people who lived in the 10% most deprived areas of the nation entered the hospital due to dog bites at a rate of 24.1 persons per 100,000, compared to persons in the the 10% least deprived areas being hospitalized at a rate of 8.1 persons per 100,000.

So, persons living in the least deprived areas of the country were 3x more likely to be victims of dog attacks than people in the most affluent areas.

For several years I've been noting when coving dog attack fatalities in the US that a disproportionate number of incidents happen in areas that are afflicted with very high poverty -- so this mirrors data that we know in the United States as well.

But I think it's very relevant from the standpoint of understanding that there is very strong evidence to indicate that dog attacks are not a breed specific problem, or a problem with dogs in general, but that they're actually a symptom of a larger societal problem in impoverished areas.

The report does not make any conclusions as to why dog attacks are more common in impoverished areas, but based on the evidence I've seen, I have a few theories, some of which are likely working in tandem together to make the statistical difference:

-- Dogs potentially less likely to live in the home as a part of a family unit

-- Inability to afford proper fencing that may lead to dogs being more likely to escape or be chained as a primary form of containment

-- People living in resource deserts are less likely to have access to veterinary instruction or training resources to help identify and deal with problems

-- Dogs may be more likely to roam at large or in packs and these packs less likely to be reported to authorities

-- Higher incidents of dogs being used for guarding or protection purposes

-- Higher incidents of children (the most likely victim) being left unsupervised

Now, I mention all of this with some caution, because I in no means want to imply that low-income people are bad pet owners. That's simply not a true statement. Keep in mind that even in the areas with the highest likelihood of someone being attacked, only .02% of people were badly injured. Even in the toughest areas of the UK, people are VERY safe from dogs, which is a good testiment to the dogs and the people in low-income neighborhoods.

However, it does point that there does seem to be more likelihood that dogs and people are put in more risky situations in these neighborhoods. So given this, if the goal is to even further minimize dog bites (from an already very low level), figuring out which of the potential options above are the biggest causal factors and helping break down those challenges is the key to creating even safer areas.

It's interesting data -- and hopefully we can further use it to cut the .02% number even lower.

April 01, 2013

In 1991, the United Kingdom issued its Dangerous Dogs Act which essentially banned four different breeds of dogs that they, at the time, considered more dangerous than other types of dogs: Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese Tosa and American Pit Bull Terrier.

However, statistics contine to show that the legislation has not only been ineffective in promoting pubic safety, it may also have been counter-productive in its efforts.

According to a recent article in The Guardian, there were roughly 1,150 dog bites that led to hospitalization in 1990 -- the year before the DDA was enacted. By 2012, the number had risen steadily to 6,447 -- a whopping 460% increase in major bites. You can get an interactive chart at the link.

Much of they're problem tends to be directly linked to the ordinance itself.

Last week, a 14 year old UK girl , Jade Anderson, was tragically killed by 4 dogs in a home where she was alone and visiting. By most accounts in the report, the girl was carrying a meat pie that the dogs were interested in, she tried to keep them away from the food and in the commotion, ended up attacked and killed by the dogs.

Based on the reports, there were three different breeds of dogs involved in the attack.

However, instead of focusing on the circumstances that led up to the attack, and caused it (pack mentality, victim potentially not well known to the dogs, the dogs being very large and too numberous and would not have been able to be handled by a young girl, potential food aggression), the authorities seem to be more focused on determining that none of the dogs involved were unlawful breeds.

Because they seem so focused on what type of dog is involved, they are completely missing the causal factors that may be leading up to the attack. And THUS, many residents of the UK are being misled into thinking they are 'safe' because they have dogs that are not of the restricted breeds instead of making appropriate procautions or being aware of warning signs. While most dogs ARE safe, dog owners certainly need to be aware of what warning signs to look for.

But they don't. And for 20 years people have been led down the path of faulty, misleading information, and the ignorance is causing more and more people to be injured.

Dog attacks are not a breed-specific issue, and when it comes to dogs, there are dozens upon dozens of breeds that are large, strong, and capable of causing harm if they are poorly handled or raised, and have beahvioral issues that are left uncorrected -- especially when the largest number of the severe bite victims (nearly 20%) are under the age of 9 and thus, more vulnerable to bites (and less aware of warning signs given by the canine).

The UK breed ban has been a huge failure -- not only failing to protect the public from severe bites, but actually, through focusing on the wrong issues, having the opposite impact that was intended.

The bill now goes to the House of Commons -- where it will also have 3 readings -- and if it passes the House of Commons, it will, essentially repeal the law. This handy little chart will help explain this.

Now, here is the important distinction. Most bills in the UK start in the House of Commons and then progress to the House of Lords (where bills are more likely to be killed). The House of Commons' (the parliament) members are voted in, where as the Lords are not. So unless there was strong constituency to oppose the bill, it would seem unlikely that the Commons would override the desire of the Lords (although it could happen). So this DEFINITELY speaks well of the progress of the bill.

This is a great step, and a good sign of another failed law that is moving toward repeal. We'll keep our fingers crossed.

Editor's Note: Thanks to Ryan O'Meara of K9 Magazine for the help on my now limited understanding of British Law, since there was no convenient School House Rock Video to help me out, like the US version. Ryan has been a very vocal supporter of the BSL repeal.

The number of suspected illegal dogs has risen from 236 to 1,786 per year. This $30 million is the cost to impound these dogs (whether they've acted aggressively or not), try to prosecute in court, and kennel and vet the dogs while they wait. One dog was left on death row for 4 years - nearly 1/2 it's natural life. Kennel costs and vet costs in that city alone grew to 2.5 million pounds.

And it's failing.

The number of dogs attacks on people has risen by 79% in London over the past 5 years.

And the courts have allowed 1,324 animals to live because they were determined not to be banned dogs -- and placed on an index of exempted dogs.

Luciana Berger, the Labour MP for Wavertree said: "Police are shelling out thousands, if not millions of pounds on kenneling. What makes the situatio worse is that there is no provision in current legislation for the police to recover the money they've spent looking after the dogs, before the legal process has ended. This situation cannot continue, particularly at a time when police are facing 20% cuts."

Her solution is flawed of course. Her solution includes killing the dogs faster....instead of recognizing that the legislation is based on a flawed premise, is unenforceable, and failing at doing its core purpose -- which is protecting the public.

Fortunately a repeal of the law is advancing through the House of Lords. Hopefully at some point the government will realize what a costly mistake their breed ban was. Many places in the US are now realizing it. And it's about time.

January 20, 2011

The Bill, initially proposed by Lord Redesdale, has overcome yet another step toward becoming a law. The Bill would replace the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 -- which banned 4 breeds of dogs - and would then target dogs based on their behavior and, more importantly, their owners.

The Dangerous Dogs Act has been widely criticized since its inception -- and has come under even more scrutiny lately as the law has cost UK citizens millions of pounds, and the number of dogs seized under the ordinance has continued to increase as have the number of dog bite hospitalizations (bites requiring hospitalizations have gone up 43% nationally in just the past 5 years).

In April of last year, Scotland passed a new ordinance that focuses on dog ownership and dog behavior (vs breeds) in hopes of getting the Dangerous Dogs Act repealed. And as more organizations have come forward in opposition to the Dangerous Dogs Act, there has become more pressure on the UK Government to fix the failed legislation. The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) recently released their findings noting that 88% of the organizations they surveyed felt the Dangerous Dogs Act was not effective in dealing with dangerous dogs.

The UK is looking to join other European nations like Scotland, Italy and The Netherlands in repealing their failed breed bands. The move to committee is yet another positive step in the process.

"We think it is necessary to move away from breed-specific legislation to anti-social pets, so dog protection notices can be applied to the owner as well as the dog. It's about trying to nip this in the bud before there are any injuries or fatalities."

The Animal Welfare Minister Jim Pace agrees:

"The issue of dangerous dogs is not a problem of dangerous breeds, but also one of bad owners. They need to be held to account and stopped from ruining people's lives."

"When 'dangerous breeds' are banned, the response of those who desire to have large muscular dogs that look intimidating is predictable: they seek out a similar type dog that is not on the list of dangerous breeds.....the latest 'dog attack' episode clearly shows the uselessness of breed specific legislation."

A recent report Department for Enviornment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA, released their findings, and now 88% of the responses from over fifty organizations (including the British Veterinary Medical Association, Metropolitan Police Service and National Dog Warden Association) say they don't believe the current legislation is effective at protecting the public, and 71% believe BSL should be repealed.

The UK is starting to feel the pressure and the public is realizing the failure of the legislation. Hopefully they will see that the law is failing, and put into place a solid, breed-neutral law that will target aggressive dogs, based on behavior, that will work on removing dangerous dogs regardless of what breed of dog it is. Many other countries in Europe have repealed their breed-specific laws and replaced them with breed neutral laws - - including Scotland (to the best of their abilities, they are still technically under the Dangerous Dogs Act), Italy, and The Netherlands.

Smart governments are willing to learn from their mistakes, recognize ineffective policy, and change their laws. We'll see if "smart" applies to the UK governing body. The pressure from the public is on.

November 29, 2010

Last Spring, the UK's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) did a 40 question survey of residents in the nation of it's opinion of the nation's Dangerous Dogs Act (which bans 4 different breeds of dogs). According to their survey, 71% of respondents called for the legislation to be repealed.

For nearly 2 decades, animal welfare organizations, along with the British Veterinary Association and The Kennel Club have been calling for a repeal of the legislation and replace it with legislation that would change the emphasis to creating better care for animals and on the actions of irresponsible pet owners -- saying that this would do a better job of protecting the public.

In addition to favoring a repeal of the legislation, 88% of the 4250 repondents said that they don't believe the current legislation is effective at protecting the public. (I personally think the idea of asking this question is ridiculous -- I really don't care if people >think< it is effective -- the statistics -- which show a 66% increase in dog attacks requiring hospitalization in the past decade speak to the ineffectiveness. However, it does show that the majority of people REALIZE it is ineffective).

The law has been a failure....and the public support for a repeal of the law appears to be overwhelming.

July 06, 2010

On Sunday, several animal welfare organizations, veterinary professionals and local authorities joined forces to push a new Dog Control Bill in the UK that would repeal three existing dangerous dogs acts (including 2 that ban four breeds of dogs).

The organizations note that over the past five years, dog bites are up 43% nationally and 79% in London. The nation has spent roughly $17 million over the past 3 years trying to enforce the unenforcable law.

Lord Redesdale commented: “People deserve to feel safe around dogs and this Bill goes a long way towards protecting the public through tougher action against irresponsible dog owners. The current law has done nothing but make banned breeds and their lookalikes more appealing and created the issue of status dogs because they are a status symbol.

“Owners of aggressive or violent dogs of any kind would be brought to account with this Bill, which in turn will prevent a large number of attacks by dealing with problem behaviour at the first signs of aggression rather than when an attack has taken place, as in current legislation”.

April 22, 2010

The Scotish Parliament today approved their new dangerous dog law they've been calling "dog Asbos" in a unanimous decision. The new law gives councils greater power to impose penalties for owners of badly behaved dogs and will focus on "deed not breed". The law would replace several laws dealing with dogs in the country, including the Dangerous Dogs Act, which bans four breeds of dogs in Scotland.

"The key message is that any dog can show aggression, particularly if it is not handled and trained properly, so legislation that provides the tools to target irresponsible ownership before it becomes a problem is very welcome. The rest of the UK should now look at Scotland and replace the failed breed-specific legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland."

The law is not yet final, but seems on pace to be soon. Great work by the folks in Scotland in listening to the professional experts in their community and making changes to a clearly failing law.

The reason the new insurance proposal was shot down: "We don't want to penalise the vast majority of responsible dog owners because they're just as concerned as everybody else about the small minority who mistreat dogs, getthem involved in dog fighting or use dogs as weapons," said Environment Secretary Hilary Benn.

"Compulsory insurance is always difficult to enforce," said Nick Starling of the Association of British Insurers. "The very people that the government is targeting -- those who mistreat their dogs or use them as weapons - are the same people who will not buy cover".

The bolded part, is exactly why the current breed ban is failing -- and why the whole Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, needs to be thrown out, and a new one started from scratch.

Wisely, the country is now, finally, admitting failure and looking at alternatives - and yet, they continue to not learn from the failure of the Dangerous Dogs Act and instead, seem destined to repeat the failure with another ill-advised piece of legislation. This isn't rocket science folks -- it's simple logic. And while all of the peope in charge of changing the law are saying the right things, the solution is somehow, completely escaping them.

****

Let's look at the two quotes from earlier:

"We don't want to penalise the vast majority of responsible dog owners because they're just as concerned as everybody else about the small minority who mistreat dogs, get them involved in dog fighting or use dogs as weapons." -- Hilary Benn

"The very people the government is targeting -- those who mistreat their dogs or use them as weapons -- are the same peope who will not buy cover." - Nick Starling

Essentially, they're talking around the issue, and don't appear to quite get it. Here are the three key points -- from their statements -- that are essential to understand to create an effective dangerous dog law:

1) The majority of dog owners are responsible, and it is a small minority of people who are responsible for the majority of the problems.

2) Broad-sweeping ordinances that unduely impact the majority of dog owners who are not causing the problem create a) bitterness and lack of help from the responsible dog owenrs and b) enforcement issues because you now have to enforce the law upon virtually everyone even though the majority of people are not causing the problems. So enforcement resources get spread too thin and the law becomes unenforceable

3) The people who you are creating the law for in the first place, are likely not going to abide by it.

Now if you look at those three things, the answer becomes really very clear:

Focus all of your animal control/police resources on dealing with people who are mistreating dogs, fighting dogs and using them as a weapons and leave everyone else alone. If we assume that those things are illegal anyway - -then just enforce those laws. Don't create new laws that make criminals out of the majority of people who are NOT causing problems. This is where the current Dangerous Dogs Act has gotten into problems in the first place....it has wasted resources trying to deal with 'pit bulls' regardless of whether the dogs are actually problems or not, or whether the owners are a part of the small minority of owners that are causing problems.

Just use all of your resources to target the people who are actually causing problems. If you're not a problem, you're not a problem.

It should be that easy...and for the life of me, I cannot figure out why some governing bodies are having so many problems figuring it out. For the UK, that means scrapping the current Dangerous Dogs Act in its entirety, get rid of the breed specific regulations, and focus on solutions that deal solely with the people who are causing problems -- starting with upped enforcement on dog fighting, using dogs for intimidation and for cruelty. Wasting time and resources on anything else is just more of the same...which is failure.